I'm an amateur photographer who uses Lightroom (4.4) and Photoshop (CS5 Extended.) I haven't updated my version of Photoshop because I use the program a couple times a month, for HDR and layers adjustments. I use Lightroom regularly, but there are many things Lightroom can't do that my version of Photoshop can. Based on the pricing, I guess Adobe just doesn't care about users like me.

There's nothing to stop you continuing to use Ps CS5, it won't suddenly expire. You can stick with LR4 or upgrade to Lr5 on the normal perpetual license model. You'd only have to subscribe if you wanted the new features in Photoshop CC, in which case your workflow actually suits the new scheme - you can keep Ps CS5 installed, and if you don't use the features in Ps CC very often you can rent it for one month as and when you need it (both versions can be installed together). There will be a few cases when the PSD files created by Ps CC won't be compatible with Ps CS5 (for example if you use TypeKit fonts or the new vector shape layers) but you can flatten out those objects.

I'm an amateur photographer who uses Lightroom (4.4) and Photoshop (CS5 Extended.) I haven't updated my version of Photoshop because I use the program a couple times a month, for HDR and layers adjustments. I use Lightroom regularly, but there are many things Lightroom can't do that my version of Photoshop can. Based on the pricing, I guess Adobe just doesn't care about users like me.

There's nothing to stop you continuing to use Ps CS5, it won't suddenly expire. You can stick with LR4 or upgrade to Lr5 on the normal perpetual license model. You'd only have to subscribe if you wanted the new features in Photoshop CC, in which case your workflow actually suits the new scheme - you can keep Ps CS5 installed, and if you don't use the features in Ps CC very often you can rent it for one month as and when you need it (both versions can be installed together). There will be a few cases when the PSD files created by Ps CC won't be compatible with Ps CS5 (for example if you use TypeKit fonts or the new vector shape layers) but you can flatten out those objects.

Mr DFM,

Can you answer a question I have?

How much longer will the CS6 suites be offered as stand alone? I'm interested in the CS6 Production suite of tools. Any idea how much longer that will be offered for purchase as stand alone?

Capture One seems really nice to replace LR but what if you shoot JPGs and not RAWs?

I used Gimp a while back and I think it's quite nice as well and can replace PS, you just need to get used to the new interface like any other software. And by the way I've never liked PS interface.

The larger question is: Why do you shoot jpgs and not RAWs?

There's really no reason anyone today that has a good camera, capable of shooting RAW to be shooting ONLY jpgs. I can understand shooting both, as that there are times for a quick slide show maybe or immediate needs, but for anyone that Post Processes, there is really no compelling reason to be doing that with anything but RAW images.

I'm an amateur photographer who uses Lightroom (4.4) and Photoshop (CS5 Extended.) I haven't updated my version of Photoshop because I use the program a couple times a month, for HDR and layers adjustments. I use Lightroom regularly, but there are many things Lightroom can't do that my version of Photoshop can. Based on the pricing, I guess Adobe just doesn't care about users like me.

There's nothing to stop you continuing to use Ps CS5, it won't suddenly expire. You can stick with LR4 or upgrade to Lr5 on the normal perpetual license model. You'd only have to subscribe if you wanted the new features in Photoshop CC, in which case your workflow actually suits the new scheme - you can keep Ps CS5 installed, and if you don't use the features in Ps CC very often you can rent it for one month as and when you need it (both versions can be installed together). There will be a few cases when the PSD files created by Ps CC won't be compatible with Ps CS5 (for example if you use TypeKit fonts or the new vector shape layers) but you can flatten out those objects.

I'm already having problems with compatibility. I just bought a 6D and my version of Photoshop does not recognize the CR2 files from that camera. I now need to convert to DNG (which is another "trust me" product from Adobe) to be able to open as layers from Lightroom to Photoshop. This will not get better. I hope someone else realizes there's a market for a lot of non-professional photographers who need more horsepower than Lightroom, but don't need or want the additional "enhancements" Adobe wants to force us to pay for.

How much longer will the CS6 suites be offered as stand alone? I'm interested in the CS6 Production suite of tools. Any idea how much longer that will be offered for purchase as stand alone?

That's my thinking as well. I'd like to move up to the latest version so that I'm covered for a couple of years until they realize the error of their ways. That I can find, you already can't purchase it from Adobe directly anymore, but third party vendors still have it.

I wouldn't be surprised if some new software appears on the horizon to challenge Adobe's place in the market. Seems like a good opportunity for a company to appeal to those not interested in cloud based software.

Perhaps members of this forum and the Nikon forum can band together to get out the word on their experience with other apps than Photoshop. Before Adobe takes away Photoshop from individual users, I would value the experience that others have in using Photoshop's competitors products. I've never been interested in anything other than Photoshop, but enough of this "Cloud" krap.

That's my thinking as well. I'd like to move up to the latest version so that I'm covered for a couple of years until they realize the error of their ways.

Maybe that's their plan: boost quarterly earnings by persuading thousands to upgrade before the license change, then say "oops, our mistake," and revert to the previous situation. In the immortal words of Daffy Duck, though, they can only do it once. Daffy Duck in THE BEST ACT in YEAR (and it UNCUT)

If you are just a photographer and not in multimedia which I find hard to believe, then a version of photoshop is £17 a month which I also see as good value, compared to spending the full outlay on PS Extended which is £649, then a new version will be out in 18 months with an upgrade path of 50% off so thats £900 for one programme. or £204 a year for PS CC.

TBH I feel most of the people who are complaining are not current subscribers to CS anyway and get it some how under the rug...

A price increase is a price increase, no matter how you spin it. And for most photographers it is a hefty price increase.

After the initial investment, Photoshop was $11.11/mo. if you bought *every* update ($200/18 mos.) or $5.55/mo. if you skipped a version and bought every other update. Now Adobe wants $19.99/mo., every month, for the rest of your working life. For many photographers this nearly doubles, or more than triples, the long term cost. How is that "a good value"?

And yes I am talking about photographers who buy it legally. Your "feeling" that most of the people who are complaining "get it some how under the rug" is just plain wrong. Most people who are complaining recognize a big price increase when they see it. You just have to do the math to see what's happening.

Some people just don't want to see it. But yes... for MOST people it is a doubling of price and ultimately that cost has to be absorbed or passed on to the consumer

Let me tell you why this is bad for us. If Adobe thought this would be good for industry professionals they would offer an option for a License or a Creative Cloud subscription. There's no option, which means they know most people wouldn't choose the Creative Cloud service. The subscription prices aren't that bad right now, but we all know how Adobe is.

In the long run it's not good for Adobe either. The effect of this is that there will be no old, cast-off versions of these products floating around for students and other beginners to play with. They will not get hooked on Adobe products, but will seek out cheap/free alternatives that are "good enough," and then they will take those other products to their working lives. Sure, there are a few specialty jobs for which there is no legitimate competition, but not enough of those to sustain this business model. Adobe are shooting themselves in the foot.

Photoshop is a consumer product as well. The photography oriented parts of Photoshop are used extensively by many amateur photographers, often in conjunction with Lightroom. LR is great but there are many things it cannot do including creative (2nd pass ) sharpening, proper cloning, curves with masks and the various content aware operations.

Of course we can all continue with LR 4 (and apparently 5) and PS CS6 for a while until the day comes when our desktops need replacing and CS6 does not support the version of Windows. Yes, I did read that Adobe has stated that they will support the next version of Windows (let's call it 9), but when 10 comes along, we've had it.

Photoshop Elements does not meet the requirements of the large group of amateur photographers who have graduated from point and shoots and only use RAW files. PSE is more for JPG users.

It would be useful if Adobe recognized that there is a large body of amateur photographers using the LR/PS combination and came out with a pricing model that makes sense for that substantial segment. For example, I suspect that most of this group do not use or need the features of the Extended version of PS.

I would prefer a return to a normal licensed version of PS, but I am a realist. Hence the request for more reasonable pricing that more closely reflects the frequency with which this group purchases updates.

Finally, I cannot find anyway on the Adobe Canada site to purchase PS CS6. Fortunately I have my copy. It appears that everybody who has not already purchased it is out of luck. I was under the impression that it could still be purchased.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 11:22:37 PM by Shanly »

Logged

Hobby Shooter

Adobe isn't splitting Lightroom into two versions; both perpetual and CC users will get Lr5. The difference is in when the free updates are released and what's inside them. Perpetual licensees get bugfixes and compatibility patches. CC subscribers may also get new features. Nobody's guaranteeing they will, just that it's legally possible.

I know this appears to contradict Adobe's argument for moving to CC, but Lightroom is part of the Consumer business along with the Elements line (the full-fat version of Photoshop and co. are in the Creative business unit, who are the ones implementing the CC system). We're not talking about running two different versions (Lr5 and Lr6), but scheduling the release of dot upgrades differently. As existing users of Creative Cloud know, Adobe have already pushed some exclusive new features to them for Dreamweaver, Illustrator, etc; but they're still called CS6. Lr will continue to have major release cycles when the version number increases, we're only talking about what happens in between those times. I'm sure Adobe would like to offer new features to perpetual license holders as well, but the lawyers say no.

The primary sales route for all consumer products is via retail (perpetual licenses and what used to be boxed products), so the fact Lr is also in the CC bundle is more of a side-effect; the same is true of Acrobat. Development will carry on as normal, there are no plans for "Lightroom CC" or "Acrobat CC", neither will Photoshop Elements go subscription-only.

In future there may well be times when new features appear in the CC-bundled version of Lr which aren't yet in the perpetual version, because Cloud subscribers get new features quicker (as SOX doesn't apply).

So how is that you say you can't continue CC and perpetual versions of programs because the code maintenance is too tricky but now you are actually splitting LR into CC and perpetual?

Kudos to you for responding to all the worried users (including myself). Me using LR only, I feel comfortable with the answers you've given us and I for one feel now that I won't need to seek any alternatives.

So I'm reading a novel on public transport and encounter the following passage:"do not despair, for in the vampire you have a friend, despite your opinion to the contrary."Not sure why the word "Adobe" popped into my head at that point...

So glad I picked up various boxed Adobe items a few months back. I'll use them until they're well and truly obsolete. I have been playing with Adobe InDesign lately and must say it looks like a very nice piece of software.

I upgraded from a Mesozoic version of Photoshop Elements to CS6 and really like the new one. A friend of mine uses Elements 10 and I can't stand it. The user interface looks tacky in the extreme, if not outright patronising. Looks like something designed for kindy kids to play with, rather than a serious tool for photographic editing. Do I really need swatches of zebra-stripe patterns, etc cluttering up my screen? No thanks.